{"id":20798,"date":"2023-04-13T10:37:14","date_gmt":"2023-04-13T10:37:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20798"},"modified":"2023-04-13T10:37:14","modified_gmt":"2023-04-13T10:37:14","slug":"case-of-arbatskiy-and-others-v-russia-80289-17-and-20-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20798","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ARBATSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 80289\/17 and 20 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF ARBATSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 80289\/17 and 20 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 April 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Arbatskiy and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107, President,
\nArmen Harutyunyan,
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr, judges,<\/p>\n

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and\/or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16\u00a0September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a040792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068-73, 13\u00a0July 2021).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a011 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers and\/or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v.\u00a0Lithuania [GC], no.\u00a037553\/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a074552\/01, ECHR 2006\u2011XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.\u00a0Moldova, no.\u00a033482\/06, 31\u00a0March 2009).<\/p>\n

9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no.\u00a074568\/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Navalnyy and Yashin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a076204\/11, 4\u00a0December 2014; and Kasparov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a021613\/07, 3\u00a0October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well\u2011established case-law (see Karelin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a0926\/08, 20\u00a0September\u00a02016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), and Tsvetkova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a054381\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a084-138, 10\u00a0April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest).<\/p>\n

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

13. In view of its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants in relation to other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings.<\/p>\n

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v.\u00a0Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a025809\/17 and 14 others, \u00a7\u00a022, 4\u00a0October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants\u2019 complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints concerning the right to peaceful assembly and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article\u00a06 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative\u2011offence proceedings;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that the applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a011 of the Convention concerning the right to peaceful assembly;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

6. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n

7. Dismisses the reminder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 April 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Faris Vehabovi\u0107
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
\n(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nName of the public event<\/strong><\/p>\n

Location<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date<\/strong><\/td>\n

Administrative charges<\/strong><\/td>\nPenalty<\/strong><\/td>\nFinal domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

Court Name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date<\/strong><\/td>\n

Other complaints under well\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)<\/strong>[i]<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n80289\/17<\/p>\n

21\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Stepan Vladimirovich ARBATSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nMarch for rotation of officials in governmental bodies<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

29\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nSt\u00a0Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

13\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and detention on 29\/04\/2017 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: St\u00a0Petersburg City Court on 13\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n80989\/17<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Anatolyevich KRYLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16\/06\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n81385\/17<\/p>\n

29\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Kirill Vladimirovich PIROGOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk, Aloye pole park<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nChelyabinsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

31\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 31\/05\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n81391\/17<\/p>\n

29\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksey Vladimirovich SOKOLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Kazan<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk, Aloye Pole park<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nChelyabinsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

31\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 31\/05\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n82141\/17<\/p>\n

24\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KULAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Saint-Barth\u00e9lemy d\u2019Anjou<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption assembly<\/p>\n

Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Amur embarkment<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a01,000<\/td>\nKhabarovsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unrecorded arrest for almost 24 hours for the purpose of drafting a record of administrative offence on 26\/03\/2017; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Khabarovsk Regional Court on 24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n82263\/17<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MINEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod, Markin square<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest and detention on 26\/03\/2017 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n82277\/17<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Anna Eduardovna STEPANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption rally<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod, Markin square<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n82290\/17<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Mikhail Alekseyevich BORODIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption picketing and rally<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod, Markin square<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO and Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a0500 and RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2017 and 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention from 26\/03\/2017 to 27\/03\/2017; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decisions: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 24\/05\/2017 and 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n82300\/17<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Nikita Maksimovich TSILIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption picketing and rally<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod, Markin square<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO and Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a010,000 and RUB\u00a0500<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention from 14:00 on 26\/03\/2017 to 15:45 on 27\/03\/2017, in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decisions: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 24\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n82787\/17<\/p>\n

29\/11\/2017<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy OBROSKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

29\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 15:00 during the assembly; brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 22:26; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 29\/05\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n84193\/17<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Vyacheslav Sergeyevich BYSTROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court 10\/07\/2017<\/td>\nArt. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested at 3:35 p.m. on 26\/03\/2017, escorted to a police station at 5:50 p.m. on the same day, protocol was delivered next day; detention for more than 3\u00a0hours without a valid reason; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 10\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n381\/18<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Vadim Andreyevich PYRYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 19.3 \u00a7 1 of CAO and Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfines of RUB\u00a0500 and RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 14:10 during the assembly and kept in a police station until 15:00 on 27\/03\/2017; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 07\/09\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n398\/18<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Mikhail Borisovich ZAGRYADSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 16:10 during the assembly; brought to the police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 20:26; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n404\/18<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Mikhail Alekseyevich GURYANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Antic-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 14:20 during the assembly; brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 18:26; examined on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n603\/18<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksey Gennadyevich ZYUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 14:00 during the assembly; brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 18:26; examined on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n612\/18<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksey Nikolayevich INKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Novocheboksarsk<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Nizhniy Novgorod<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nNizhniy Novgorod Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 14:10 during the assembly; brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the same day at 18:26; examined on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n1601\/18<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Vasilyevich ARKHIPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Tverskaya str., Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

14\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested during the rally, on 26\/03\/2017, at 14:50, taken to a police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, released on the same day at 23:30; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 14\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n1614\/18<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Vladimir Aleksandrovich AVAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Tverskaya str., Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7\u00a06.1 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a010,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicant was arrested on 26\/03\/2017, at approximately 15:05, taken to the police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest and released on the same day, at 23:40; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 16\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n1626\/18<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Nikita Yuryevich KANUNNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Tverskaya str., Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

02\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrested on 26\/03\/2017 at 3:55 p.m. during the assembly; brought to a police station to draw up a record of administrative arrest; released on the following day at 1:00\u00a0a.m.; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 02\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n1684\/18<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Nikolayevich KUBAROVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a015,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest without protocol for 6 hours on 26\/03\/2017, wrong indication of time of arrest, a copy of protocol was not provided by the police; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 04\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n2435\/18<\/p>\n

28\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

Pavel Aleksandrovich MAKOGON<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

Memorial Human Rights Centre<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Anti-corruption manifestation<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Article 20.2 \u00a7 5 of CAO<\/td>\nfine of RUB\u00a020,000<\/td>\nMoscow City Court<\/p>\n

30\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention in a police station for 4 hours from 16:00 on 26\/03\/2017; detention in excess of 3\u00a0hours; raised on appeal,<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. Final decision: Moscow City Court on 30\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n